Switch Theme:

unarmoured, cheap transport vehicle?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Hi everybody,
here I wanted to discuss a bit about something that got somehow stuck in my mind:
Regarding the low value a lot of WH40k factions place on their standard troops (AM, R&H, Genestealer cults every Chaos army including cultist, poxwalkers etc.) it seems kind of surprising how much they are concerned for their safety when it comes to transports. The AM & R&H transports are all relatively strongly armoured (T6+, Sv 3+) and Chaos seems to use Rhinos etc. while the lightest the Genestealer cults have is the goliath with T6 Sv4+.
I wonder why none of these factions just uses the absolut basic, simple, unarmoured and unarmed truck to hurl their troops around. So really just something like this:

Especially since I read more than once that transports have become kind of pointless because they often cost more than the unit they are transporting

Therefore I just wanted to throw something in the ring and hear some of your comments on that (I don't have a specific model in mind, it's just some kind of mindstorm):

Truck (Power Level: 1, 20 points).
M 14'' => the same as a Taurox
WS - / BS -/A0, no armament => its a civilian vehicle and not inteded to fight
S 4, T4, W4, Sv 6+ => it is not build to withstand any more than some glancing bolter/lasgun shots
Abilities:
Open cargo platform: Embarked units can attack but also be attacked in the shooting and fight phase, as long as all other requirements are met (e.g. line of sight, distance <1'' etc.)
simple vehicle: regarding abilities and strategems that repair or deepstrike [FACTION] vehicles this unit can be treated as having the matching [FACTION] keyword
Transport capacity: 10 Infantry*
Keywords: vehicle, transport, unaligned**


* the usual constraints like heavy weapons teams counting as two models etc. still apply
** this vehicle can be included in any army without preventing other units in that detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine. Note, however, that it can never themselves benefit from a regimental doctrine etc. It can not benefit from any strategems beside the ones mentioned in simple vehicle


Things I'm unsure with:
1. the rule for Open cargo plattform. From what I intend, I don't see any reason why it should not be possible to swing a chainsword at someone sitting on the loading platform of a truck or shooting at him as long as I see/reach him. But of course this would be very different from how transports work at the moment
2. should (fluff wise) heavier models like Terminators, Ogryns etc. be excluded from the transportable units?
3. are the costs OK or should they be higher/lower?
4. fluff wise I think the "simple vehicle" ability makes sense (if I can deepstrike/repair a Baneblade, why shouldn't I a truck?), yet it might be simpler to just exclude it from any ability or strategem. Opinions on that?


I think (!) this unit would make kind of sense fluffwise and would provide a relatively cheap mobility upgrade to standard troops. It can not be abused as cheap protection for flimsy embarked infantry. At the moment I don't see any way to abuse this, but I might be just blind. So if any of you see some cheese hidden in there please feel free to point me on that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/09 09:30:21


 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Collabirator






With stats like that, it will be gone instantly; but that's kind of the point. 5 intercessors in rapid-fire range next to a captain will destroy it in one turn.

I think it should be Mv 12" WS 6+ BS - S5 T5 A2 W5 Sv 6+, PL 2 pts 40, Capacity 10 infantry (models take up a number of transport slots equal to its maximum wound characteristic; characters divide their wound total by two when determining transport space, rounding down and to a minimum of 1). An ability that let's be included in any army (even nids) provided it takes up a transport slot, but no faction keyword, so no stratagems.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Pyroalchi wrote:
Things I'm unsure with:
1. the rule for Open cargo plattform. From what I intend, I don't see any reason why it should not be possible to swing a chainsword at someone sitting on the loading platform of a truck or shooting at him as long as I see/reach him. But of course this would be very different from how transports work at the moment
2. should (fluff wise) heavier models like Terminators, Ogryns etc. be excluded from the transportable units?
3. are the costs OK or should they be higher/lower?
4. fluff wise I think the "simple vehicle" ability makes sense (if I can deepstrike/repair a Baneblade, why shouldn't I a truck?), yet it might be simpler to just exclude it from any ability or strategem. Opinions on that?


1. Open Cargo Platform seems kind of clunky to me, and this is probably the rule that's most open to potential abuse. Sticking a relatively killy melee unit in this thing and then leaving them free to continue hiding inside it while they do full damage seems like it could end badly even if the truck itself is pretty easy to shut down. I'd ditch this version of the rule and instead give it open-topped as per ork trukks and drukhari transports. For whatever reason, it is an established thing in 40k that it's pretty easy to shoot out of a vehicle but pretty hard to stab out of a vehicle.

2. I don't think it really makes sense for a lot of factions to have a wheeled truk. It's great for any human-sized imperials. Skitarii, sisters, guardsmen, etc. should all probably have access to basically a jeep/transport warthog. Marines not only seem too big/heavy for it but also arguably shouldn't have any reason to field such a vehicle. Your chapter armory is full of rhinos and land raiders and land speeders and drop pods. I can't see them asking the mechanicus to please send over the flimsiest, cheapest wheeled vehicle they have available.

Eldar do have civillian transports that might make sense as a "skimmer truck". Craftworlders, however, are probably too protective of their limited population to intentionally put them in a flimsy vehicle that is likely to leave them stranded. Drukhari that are wealthy enough to leave the webway are wealthy enough to have a proper raider/venom to hang out in. Tau skimmer trucks maybe make sense. Necrons probably have/had the technology for them, but have also probably abandoned such things. You stick your mooks in ghost arks, you give your nobility fancy barges, and you teleport everything else whenever it needs to go somewhere. Tyranids, barring GSC, would be silly driving trucks.

So with that in mind, I think the easiest way to implement this idea would be to settle on the basic "civillian transport" statline and just create a datasheet for each faction that should reasonably have it and then include any exceptions you want in each datasheet's transport rule. So the IG version could ban Ogryn, for instance.

3. The cost is probably close to right for the statline you've presented, but I disagree with the statline. Even acknowledigng that GSC and ork vehicles are made of tougher stuff than a mundane wheeled civillian vehicle, T4, W4, and a 6+ save seem way too squishy compared to things like drukhari and ork vehicles that literally have chunks of the engine and cockpit exposed. I feel like T5, W5, and a 5+ save are the least durable you can go without the "truck" feeling more like a dirt bike. In fact, your statline is pretty close to the GSC dirt bike but with a worse save if I'm not mistaken. It should also really have a WS. People die from having cars drive into them all the time. Surely a truck can drive over a guardsman or a gretchin if push comes to shove. WS6+ and Attacks 1 are fine. Plus, I can think of at least one special rule (a harlie relic) that requires a WS as part of its interaction. It should also have a BS as a formality. Any BS is fine. Don't give it a gun. Charge 0 points for it. But have one.

I'd recommend making changes along the lines of the ones above and then calculating the price from there. An ork truck has some thick plating on it, but a regular truck can't be that much less durable in comparison.

4. This is easily addressed by just ditching the complicated rule and making a datasheet for each faction that can take this truck.

Eipi10 wrote:With stats like that, it will be gone instantly; but that's kind of the point. 5 intercessors in rapid-fire range next to a captain will destroy it in one turn.

I think it should be Mv 12" WS 6+ BS - S5 T5 A2 W5 Sv 6+, PL 2 pts 40, Capacity 10 infantry (models take up a number of transport slots equal to its maximum wound characteristic; characters divide their wound total by two when determining transport space, rounding down and to a minimum of 1). An ability that let's be included in any army (even nids) provided it takes up a transport slot, but no faction keyword, so no stratagems.


Probably don't need to add screwy wound-based calculations for characters. Just create a datasheet for appropriate fashions and handle it there.
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Thanks for your Input.

@ Eipi10: I think (!) for the intended role (transport for cheap infantry costing around 4-7 points/model) 40 points is on the brink of too expensive. I mean a Rhino costs 67...

@ Wyldhunt:
Open Cargo Platform seems kind of clunky to me, and this is probably the rule that's most open to potential abuse. Sticking a relatively killy melee unit in this thing and then leaving them free to continue hiding inside it while they do full damage seems like it could end badly even if the truck itself is pretty easy to shut down. I'd ditch this version of the rule and instead give it open-topped as per ork trukks and drukhari transports. For whatever reason, it is an established thing in 40k that it's pretty easy to shoot out of a vehicle but pretty hard to stab out of a vehicle.

I agree that it might be easier to skip the melee bit, yet it seems that the most important part of the "Open Cargo Platform" rule slipped through: I intended to make it possible for enemies to target the troops embarked in the transport directly. So explicitly no "hiding inside" for killy units. If I stick a Lascannon team on a truck it might move faster and even fire (with the usual -1), but I don't think they would get any protection from those flimsy, hip-high, wooden sidewalls of the cargo platform. Therefore the normal "Open topped" rule does not quite fit, since it still protects the transported units from enemy fire until the transport is destroyed.
Another possibility might be to say for every wound the truck looses, the embarked units suffer one mortal wound (to simulate bullets entering the passanger space)

What is your take on that? Does it make sense to target units on a truck? And if so, would this justify a pricetag of 30 points or below?



Taken together I try a second time (for guard as example)

Truck (Power Level: 2, 30 points).
M 12'
WS 6+ / BS 6+ /A2
S 5, T5, W5, Sv 5+
Abilities:
unarmoured civilan transport: embarked units can attack and be attacked in the shooting phase
Transport capacity: 10 Astra Militarum Infantry, cannot transport Ogryns, heavy weapons teams count as 2 models
Keywords: vehicle, transport, Astra Militarum
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Explodes

In the Grimdark future of DerpHammer40k, there are only dank memes! 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Pyroalchi wrote:
Thanks for your Input.

@ Eipi10: I think (!) for the intended role (transport for cheap infantry costing around 4-7 points/model) 40 points is on the brink of too expensive. I mean a Rhino costs 67...

@ Wyldhunt:
Open Cargo Platform seems kind of clunky to me, and this is probably the rule that's most open to potential abuse. Sticking a relatively killy melee unit in this thing and then leaving them free to continue hiding inside it while they do full damage seems like it could end badly even if the truck itself is pretty easy to shut down. I'd ditch this version of the rule and instead give it open-topped as per ork trukks and drukhari transports. For whatever reason, it is an established thing in 40k that it's pretty easy to shoot out of a vehicle but pretty hard to stab out of a vehicle.

I agree that it might be easier to skip the melee bit, yet it seems that the most important part of the "Open Cargo Platform" rule slipped through: I intended to make it possible for enemies to target the troops embarked in the transport directly. So explicitly no "hiding inside" for killy units. If I stick a Lascannon team on a truck it might move faster and even fire (with the usual -1), but I don't think they would get any protection from those flimsy, hip-high, wooden sidewalls of the cargo platform. Therefore the normal "Open topped" rule does not quite fit, since it still protects the transported units from enemy fire until the transport is destroyed.
Another possibility might be to say for every wound the truck looses, the embarked units suffer one mortal wound (to simulate bullets entering the passanger space)

What is your take on that? Does it make sense to target units on a truck? And if so, would this justify a pricetag of 30 points or below?



Taken together I try a second time (for guard as example)

Truck (Power Level: 2, 30 points).
M 12'
WS 6+ / BS 6+ /A2
S 5, T5, W5, Sv 5+
Abilities:
unarmoured civilan transport: embarked units can attack and be attacked in the shooting phase
Transport capacity: 10 Astra Militarum Infantry, cannot transport Ogryns, heavy weapons teams count as 2 models
Keywords: vehicle, transport, Astra Militarum


i'd use that.
No honestly i'd use that for my renegades.
Altough shouldn't the Bs depend on the driver?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

It doesn’t have guns.

BS 6+ is just in case it needs to be referenced.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 JNAProductions wrote:
It doesn’t have guns.

BS 6+ is just in case it needs to be referenced.


shame, i'd really have loved to tack some Heavy stubbers on it.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





I think for the intended role (dirtcheap flimsy transport for dirtcheap flimsy troops) it's better to keep it as simple and unarmed as possibly. Thus one can justify a pricetag of 30 points or below that would be neccessary to fullfill that role
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Pyroalchi wrote:

I agree that it might be easier to skip the melee bit, yet it seems that the most important part of the "Open Cargo Platform" rule slipped through: I intended to make it possible for enemies to target the troops embarked in the transport directly. So explicitly no "hiding inside" for killy units.

My bad! I totally registered that detail when I first read the post but forgot about it by the time I was in a position to write my response! XD

That said, I'm still not a fan of being able to attack units inside of the truck. It goes against the precedent set by other vehicles and breaks a lot of assumptions about the game. For instance, RAW, you can't be within 1" of a unit inside of the truck because the unit inside the truck isn't considered to be on the table (and thus can't be targeted by attacks, abilities, etc.) Similarly, a ranged weapon can never be said to be within range of a unit in a transport because units in transports aren't considered to be on the table. You could write exceptions to all the weird interactions this would create, but you probably couldn't do so elegantly. And by the time you ironed out all the edges, you'd probably end up with more new rules and exceptions than it's really worth.

It makes as much sense for guys to be unable to jab at enemies from inside a truck bed as it does for them to be unable to jab at enemies from inside an ork trukk bed. That is, not much but that's how these things are handled in 40k, apparently. So for the sake of simplicity and consistency, I'd say to give the truck the Open-Topped rule.


Another possibility might be to say for every wound the truck looses, the embarked units suffer one mortal wound (to simulate bullets entering the passanger space)

What is your take on that? Does it make sense to target units on a truck?

It makes sense to be able to target units inside a truck. It also makes sense to be able to target units inside of a trukk or raider, but 40k abstracts that out to make it a non-option.

I'd ditch the mortal wound thing on the basis that it adds extra dice rolling and that mortal wounds cheap and expensive infantry (compare a guardsman to a sister) a-symmetrically.

Also, I get that you're trying to keep this thing dirt cheap, but I'm not sure you need to aim for 30 points or less. Despite complaints that say otherwise, a transport doesn't become useless if it costs as much or more as a second unit. Units with a transport and short-ranged weapons function very differently from two units footslogging. Especially if said transport happens to have the open-topped rule.

   
Made in us
Pragmatic Collabirator






Wyldhunt wrote:
Pyroalchi wrote:
Probably don't need to add screwy wound-based calculations for characters. Just create a datasheet for appropriate fashions and handle it there.

Marines should be more expensive to transport than guardsmen. Would a flat -2 for characters be better?


Pyroalchi wrote:Thanks for your Input.

@ Eipi10: I think (!) for the intended role (transport for cheap infantry costing around 4-7 points/model) 40 points is on the brink of too expensive. I mean a Rhino costs 67...

Taken together I try a second time (for guard as example)

Truck (Power Level: 2, 30 points).
M 12'
WS 6+ / BS 6+ /A2
S 5, T5, W5, Sv 5+
Abilities:
unarmoured civilan transport: embarked units can attack and be attacked in the shooting phase
Transport capacity: 10 Astra Militarum Infantry, cannot transport Ogryns, heavy weapons teams count as 2 models
Keywords: vehicle, transport, Astra Militarum


So are you going AM and RH only? Will other factions get their own sheet?
And personally, I don't think you should be able to shoot out of this vehicle, it makes it more than a basic transport. You are right, 40pts is too much. For such a basic unit, I don't think a big PL/points discrepancy is good. Maybe go all the way back to 20pts, with a 10" movement, 6+ save, and 4 wounds. Maybe even give it a no multi-wound model restriction, so no heavy weapons teams or characters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/11 04:59:22


 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





I only made the example for guard in response to the comment, that separate datasheets for each faction would be easier to handle than a general unaligned datasheet. The intent would be to make a similar vehicle accessible for everyone (even though it does not really make sense for elite faction like Custodes or Marines).

Regarding the whole shooting stuff: since in the end a lot of stuff in WH40k is abstraction anyway I have reconsidered and would drop it completely (both directions). Then it would also work more similar to the other transports.

Also as CadianGateTroll mentioned I forgot "explodes".

@ speed: regarding the Chimera and Goliath Truck living M12 and Taurox M14 I find to keep M12

So another try (as mentioned, the datasheet would be almost the same for GSC, Chaos etc.)
Truck, PL 2, 30 points
M12
WS 6+, BS 6+, A2
S5, T5, W4, Sv 5+
abilities: explodes (1 MW for units in D6'' on a 6+ upon destruction)
Transport capacity: 10 AM infantry, cannot transport Ogryns or HWS
Keywords: Transport, Vehicle, Astra Militarum, [REGIMENT]
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





why should an HWT be an issue to transport?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





I was trying to follows Eipi10s recommendations. Fluff wise it might be problematic to get a Lascannon into a small truck. And with transport capacity 10 light infantry dudes we are looking at a really light truck at the moment.
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Pyroalchi wrote:
I was trying to follows Eipi10s recommendations. Fluff wise it might be problematic to get a Lascannon into a small truck. And with transport capacity 10 light infantry dudes we are looking at a really light truck at the moment.


if you can get 10 dudes in, then you can get a heavy stubber in.
Also HWT limit is idiotic, because if the argument is space, special weaponry would be effected as equal and one man with HW's aswell.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/12 13:07:52


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Ok, then just ignore that part. Does the rest look ok now?
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Collabirator






Yeah, I only meant to give it a HWT restriction if you wanted to have the same datasheet for all units. The rest of it is probably good. If you instited on keeping it at 2PL, then a fifth wound and a 35 point cost would not be remise.
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Honestly, you most likely don't see these sort of vehicles in 40K because everyone clambers out of them just out of firing range so the troops aren't a bunch of sitting ducks and the vehicles aren't shot to flaming wrecks the first time someone points an anti-anything gun in its direction.

Would make sense to have these with larger troop capacity (15, 20, possibly 50 when you consider things like the Stormhammer). Consider possible variations of wheeled, half-tracked, tracked & even hover for these vehicles.

Most of these vehicles would have a mount (or three) for man-portable weapons - most likely stubbers (.30 cal) in the troop area or a heavy stubber (.50 cal) at the shotgun rider's position.

Also consider that these vehicles have two other strengths - they can haul cargo instead of troops (for example, riveting a mortar, 105mm howitzer or rocket system [such as the Katayusha] to the back) and have hitches for hauling towed guns (such as the Rapier and other anti-tanks guns that have vanished from 40K). In both cases, the vehicle would probably have to remain immobile to use its guns - possibly take a turn to unhitch and set up any towed guns).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another consideration to reduce its cost:

Unarmored Driver: If an enemy Infantry model moves within 1" of the vehicle, treat the model as having 0 wounds for the remainder of the game.

This is meant to model enemy troops pointing guns at the driver and forcibly removing them from/forcing the surrender of the unprotected driver in the cab/cockpit.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Collabirator






That's a cool idea, but maybe it should be changed to "if this model suffers a wound during the fight phase, change its movement characteristic to 0"". I don't the rule would activate in too many games, so maybe it would be worth -2/3 points?

But I do agree with the big idea that 40k needs more larger transports. Making every 10 man transport have a capacity of 12 and turning every 12 man transport into a 15 man transport would not be remiss.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: